Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Inquisitor feedback


Round 3 - Alchemist and Inquisitor

51 to 89 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Zurai wrote:


Keep in mind that monster lore, although it does have "monster" in the name, applies to any knowledge checks to identify the abilities or weaknesses of any creature. Even humans are creatures. A Knowledge: Nobility check to decide that Baron Harkess is overly fond of his whisky is within the mechanical purview of the Monster Lore ability.

Also note that, in D&D, religions are threatened or opposed to different things than they are in real life. Sure, in real life, religions are most threatened by people. In D&D, religions can be threatened by all sorts of nonhumans -- demons, devils, various humanoids worshiping different deities (Lamashtu being especially common among monstrous races), undead, etc etc -- in addition to the 'player races'.

Yeah. I felt that Monster Lore was one of the best abilities the class has simply in terms of how it meshes with the stated intent of the class to seek out and hunt down enemies of the faith.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Schmoe wrote:


Nunspa wrote:

He would never form true, lasting connections with his allies…

Why?

because, in the back of his head he knows that one day he may be called upon to strike them down for the betterment of his faith.

What happens if one day they find the equivalent of the davinci code exposing something about the Inquisitor’s faith! He would have to find a way, not only to destroy the items in question, but to kill off or permanently silent anyone that can expose it.

What happens if one of the characters, a cleric of the same god, decides to change gods!!

The Inquisitor by its very nature is a lone wolf.

The recommendations you propose are more for a battle cleric… a leader of men! “Strike Down Our Foe! Now!! Strike at the Heart of darkness may my gods hand guide you!!”

Not a man that one day may be called upon to kill his best friend to protect his faith.

I think this gets down to the confusion I have with the class. Does the inquisitor prefer working with allies, or does he prefer to be solo? And to be frank, I don't think the flavor for the class specifies one...

From what I can tell, the Inquisitor gets only the his Solo Tactics ability for having allies arround. He NEEDS allies sometimes, but they are a liability for him and he knows it. They could betray him at any moment, but until then he will be vigilant and use them where he can. He is still quite able on his own, as his skill list is amasing, his other combat abilities are solid, and he has some good spells to do useful things.


Schmoe wrote:


I think this gets down to the confusion I have with the class. Does the inquisitor prefer working with allies, or does he prefer to be solo? And to be frank, I don't think the flavor for the class specifies one...

Well it all depends on how you look at it…

On the flip side…

The inquisitor is ultimate judge of character; he sizes up his opponents as much as he sizes up his allies… Yes he needs them, for now, but they are expendable for the greater good of the church. His companions are not so much allies as they are tools to an end, and any master knows how to use those tools.

He knows how his allies fight and uses it to his advantage and his advantage alone, he does not improve his allies strike, but knows that his allies style favors to attack the right side of an oppent, which will of course cause the oppoents to defend one side more then the other… creating an opening the inquisitor can take advantage of.

If he would grant Tactical feats to his allies he would be a leader of men, that is not the Inquisitor... He can lead if need be.. But in the end he only improves his own position on the battle field.. at the expense of others, by using others....


Nunspa wrote:
Schmoe wrote:


I think this gets down to the confusion I have with the class. Does the inquisitor prefer working with allies, or does he prefer to be solo? And to be frank, I don't think the flavor for the class specifies one...

Well it all depends on how you look at it…

On the flip side…

The inquisitor is ultimate judge of character; he sizes up his opponents as much as he sizes up his allies… Yes he needs them, for now, but they are expendable for the greater good of the church. His companions are not so much allies as they are tools to an end, and any master knows how to use those tools.

He knows how his allies fight and uses it to his advantage and his advantage alone, he does not improve his allies strike, but knows that his allies style favors to attack the right side of an oppent, which will of course cause the oppoents to defend one side more then the other… creating an opening the inquisitor can take advantage of.

If he would grant Tactical feats to his allies he would be a leader of men, that is not the Inquisitor... He can lead if need be.. But in the end he only improves his own position on the battle field.. at the expense of others, by using others....

People have different interpretations about the inquisitor which is fine, but I think you guys go a bit too far into the specific morals and view of a single character, different inquisitors do things differently.

In my opinion the inquisitor is capable solo, a wide range of abilities and adaptable to many situations. Adaptability seems to be key to the class.


Remco Sommeling wrote:


People have different interpretations about the inquisitor which is fine, but I think you guys go a bit too far into the specific morals and view of a single character, different inquisitors do things differently.

In my opinion the inquisitor is capable solo, a wide range of abilities and adaptable to many situations. Adaptability seems to be key to the class.

Well my logic is that the Inquisitor would have to be more then a little detached...

Because if his Chruch called for the death of one of his friends........

You can see were things get dicy, yes some Inquisitor's may allow their firends to escape... but at that point, they are not loyal to the church, and are just a corrupt Inquisitor, like a corrupt cleric and so forth.


Not all Inquisitors are Lawful. For that matter, there's nothing that says an Inquisitor has to even be subject to Church hierarchy. Not saying they can't be, but it can't be assumed as the default.


Zurai wrote:
Not all Inquisitors are Lawful. For that matter, there's nothing that says an Inquisitor has to even be subject to Church hierarchy. Not saying they can't be, but it can't be assumed as the default.

I would agree with this. Remember the Inquisitor is supposed to be able to act independent of the church. He is upholding an ideal that he also can hold the church accountable to. For example, if your god is Cayden or Desna so you would be focused in preserving people's personal freedoms to do as they wanted as long as it doesn't hurt anyone or the church. If a higher up in the church starts becoming a bit too lawful and placing unnecessary restrictions on the clergy and populace especially if it is for personal gain, then the inquisitor should be putting a beatdown on that church leader.

Also, if you had a Lawful Good paladin in the party who felt that a villain who was a danger to that ideal or the church should not be eliminated after the party defeated him because of their "moral code" it could come down to a knockdown dragout fight with the paladin because you are not going to let the villain have a chance to get away or do harm at a later date. You will take out the Paladin if you have to in order to get to the villain.

The Inquisitor as designed in mind should be taking orders from the church. They should be acting on the ideals of the god they worship and work to enforce those ideals to the best of their abilities regardless of the "church" since it would also be your responsibility to hold them accountable as well.


Nunspa wrote:
Remco Sommeling wrote:


People have different interpretations about the inquisitor which is fine, but I think you guys go a bit too far into the specific morals and view of a single character, different inquisitors do things differently.

In my opinion the inquisitor is capable solo, a wide range of abilities and adaptable to many situations. Adaptability seems to be key to the class.

Well my logic is that the Inquisitor would have to be more then a little detached...

Because if his Chruch called for the death of one of his friends........

You can see were things get dicy, yes some Inquisitor's may allow their firends to escape... but at that point, they are not loyal to the church, and are just a corrupt Inquisitor, like a corrupt cleric and so forth.

'they answer to their deity and their own sense of justice alone, ..'

It might make for a nice story arc, but in a player party this won't usually be a problem, it isn't likely the inquisitor is going to kill his friends, an evil inquisitor might be more likely to do this.

Roleplay him as a suspicious inquisitive sort, not a murderous maniac that kills his friends for minor or imagined slights.


And that, of course, is one of the intriguing aspects of the class. And what makes it even more interesting is that the inquisitor can have an alignment within one step of their deity along EITHER the law/chaos axis or good/evil axis. In other words --

A Lawful Good divinity can have a Lawful Neutral inquisitor -- a correct and 'lawful' follower but a good deal more pragmatic and ruthless than most of their worshippers.

A True Neutral divinity can have a Neutral Good inquisitor -- a character with neutral tendencies but who has a more benign and mild interpretation of ecclesiastical canon than the priests and worshippers of this deity usually do.

A Lawful Neutral god or goddess can be followed by a Lawful Evil inquisitor -- a character who follows dogma, but who cold, fierce, and cruel in carrying out their duties, killing and torturing without a qualm if they deem the cause sufficient.

A Chaotic Evil deity could have a Chaotic Neutral inquisitor -- who follows the tenets of their god but tries to avoid undue harm in doing so -- sort of juggling their beliefs and conscience.

All of these -- and all the other possible permutations -- sound like excellent frames on which to hang inquisitorial personalities and storylines. Since the inquisitor has some independence from the official church (and is partly charged with keeping it in line, so to speak), I can even see that highly influential, powerful inquisitors (or groups of such) could have a gradual, long-term alignment shift effect on their church.

For example, many Lawful Good inquisitors of a Neutral Good deity might eventually cause a slight shift in the direction of more 'lawfulness' in the church through their actions. Which means you could end up with churches (or at least sects) that worship a god of different alignment than their application of his/her beliefs would suggest. LN followers of a LE goddess, for example -- reconciling their neutrality with her evil as best they can ....

All of which sounds like it's bursting with interesting roleplaying potential to me. :)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Remco Sommeling wrote:
Nunspa wrote:
Remco Sommeling wrote:


People have different interpretations about the inquisitor which is fine, but I think you guys go a bit too far into the specific morals and view of a single character, different inquisitors do things differently.

In my opinion the inquisitor is capable solo, a wide range of abilities and adaptable to many situations. Adaptability seems to be key to the class.

Well my logic is that the Inquisitor would have to be more then a little detached...

Because if his Chruch called for the death of one of his friends........

You can see were things get dicy, yes some Inquisitor's may allow their firends to escape... but at that point, they are not loyal to the church, and are just a corrupt Inquisitor, like a corrupt cleric and so forth.

'they answer to their deity and their own sense of justice alone, ..'

It might make for a nice story arc, but in a player party this won't usually be a problem, it isn't likely the inquisitor is going to kill his friends, an evil inquisitor might be more likely to do this.

Roleplay him as a suspicious inquisitive sort, not a murderous maniac that kills his friends for minor or imagined slights.

Interparty conflicts are common already, especially with Paladins. I recently had my PC murdered by my Paladin companion (simultaneously killing her in my defense) because he had sworn an oath whose nature demanded it.

He vowed to kill the mayor of the city and take control of it for the good of the people. I recently became mayor, so now he had to kill me to fullfill this vow.

I also know many people who love playing characters with different motivations traveling for convienience. They are not always the evil characters who will backstab their buddies, especially when Duty commands it.


It was not exactly my point that you can't play it like that.

My point was that you absolutely do not have to play an inquisitor that has to kill your party, possible yes, likely heck no.

There is absolutely no problem having an inquisitor in the party, you CAN make it a problem though, in all honesty you can do that with every class.


Remco Sommeling wrote:

It was not exactly my point that you can't play it like that.

My point was that you absolutely do not have to play an inquisitor that has to kill your party, possible yes, likely heck no.

There is absolutely no problem having an inquisitor in the party, you CAN make it a problem though, in all honesty you can do that with every class.

I definitely agree with your viewpoint. I would think that the inquisitor would only resort to intra-party violence if the party was doing something that violated the inquisitor's beliefs blatantly -- for example, planning on murdering the pious, faithful high priest of the inquisitor's religion for personal gain.

In this case, though, that's not so much an 'inquisitor feature' as a 'human feature' -- for example, the CG rogue might well stick a shiv into the barbarian's kidney if the said barbarian were preparing to chop up the said rogue's elderly mother. In short, there's a level of provocation that anybody's going to go ballistic over, even if the TYPE of provocation differs from person to person.

Most of the time, though, I'd expect the inquisitor to cooperate with the party like any other class, and use persuasion to influence their companions to do the faith's work when the opportunity arises. Especially in the case of good-aligned and neutral-aligned inquisitors.

They may go medieval on out-and-out enemies of the faith without a qualm, but I'd expect them to try to stay on the same side as their allies as long as they didn't actively start attacking the inquisitor's religious organization (unless the said organization has been subverted by a lich, for example, in which case their help might be welcomed in the 'cleansing' ...). An inquisitor might view their party as being, ultimately, semi-tools in the greater cause, but it doesn't mean they can't be friends with them, too.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Carnivorous_Bean wrote:
Remco Sommeling wrote:

It was not exactly my point that you can't play it like that.

My point was that you absolutely do not have to play an inquisitor that has to kill your party, possible yes, likely heck no.

There is absolutely no problem having an inquisitor in the party, you CAN make it a problem though, in all honesty you can do that with every class.

I definitely agree with your viewpoint. I would think that the inquisitor would only resort to intra-party violence if the party was doing something that violated the inquisitor's beliefs blatantly -- for example, planning on murdering the pious, faithful high priest of the inquisitor's religion for personal gain.

In this case, though, that's not so much an 'inquisitor feature' as a 'human feature' -- for example, the CG rogue might well stick a shiv into the barbarian's kidney if the said barbarian were preparing to chop up the said rogue's elderly mother. In short, there's a level of provocation that anybody's going to go ballistic over, even if the TYPE of provocation differs from person to person.

Most of the time, though, I'd expect the inquisitor to cooperate with the party like any other class, and use persuasion to influence their companions to do the faith's work when the opportunity arises. Especially in the case of good-aligned and neutral-aligned inquisitors.

They may go medieval on out-and-out enemies of the faith without a qualm, but I'd expect them to try to stay on the same side as their allies as long as they didn't actively start attacking the inquisitor's religious organization (unless the said organization has been subverted by a lich, for example, in which case their help might be welcomed in the 'cleansing' ...). An inquisitor might view their party as being, ultimately, semi-tools in the greater cause, but it doesn't mean they can't be friends with them, too.

I totally agree. But I think part of the Inquisitor is about being willing to put aside your feelings for your friends for a greater cause.


that is your interpretation, it has to be stressed though that the greater cause is mostly his own viewpoint, his alignment isnt quite like that of the deity. sure he respect the faith, but eventually makes his own decisions


northbrb wrote:
I really like the idea of the Inquisitor but I’m not a fan of them gaining spells, I feel the class would work better if you give them more of an expert feel. Give them some spell-like abilities but not spells, I see them working more for a church than a god and I see them gaining training and power from that church than there own faith. I do like the other abilities though I don’t really like the tactical feats for them I find it odd that the same time they introduce the tactical feats they also introduce a class that gains an ability that allows them to use those feats without others having them, I find this very odd.

So, this gets down to the other thing that I find strange about the class. When I look at the class, I see middle-of-the-road BAB, spell-casting, and HP, poor weapons and armor, but strong skills. In addition, there is a vast realm of potential ways in which an "Inquisitor" might use skills, from intimidating and demoralizing enemies, to rooting out falsehoods and deception, to converting laypeople to the true faith. But the abilities for the class, except for Tracking and the minor ability of Monster Lore, completely ignore the skills! There is very little synergy between the class abilities and one of the strongest fundamental parts of the class.

Others have touched on this as well, and I agree, but I would really like to see the Inquisitor have some abilities that tie in with Sense Motive and Intimidate.

I generally think of two interpretations for the Inquisitor. One is someone who works behind the scenes to influence others, coerce confession, and mete out punishment on those who have been apprehended. The other is the pointy tip of the spear who uncovers heretical plots and destroys the blasphemers. But a big part of the job of this latter interpretation is the actual investigation and uncovering of blasphemous practices. And a big part of investigation relates to the skills. Without that, the character is reduced to being a hitman for the church.

I'm not saying that the class can't take on the investigatory role as it currently stands. With plentiful skill points and useful skills, he can, at least as well as any other class with similar skill sets (bard, rogue). But I guess my point is that the abilities for a class help to set expectations of the role for the class, and right now the abilities just seem to be trying to make the middle of the road BAB, armor, and HP character into a combat bad-ass. That seems... misleading?


Nunspa wrote:
Schmoe wrote:


I think this gets down to the confusion I have with the class. Does the inquisitor prefer working with allies, or does he prefer to be solo? And to be frank, I don't think the flavor for the class specifies one...

Well it all depends on how you look at it…

On the flip side…

The inquisitor is ultimate judge of character; he sizes up his opponents as much as he sizes up his allies… Yes he needs them, for now, but they are expendable for the greater good of the church. His companions are not so much allies as they are tools to an end, and any master knows how to use those tools.
<snip>

Fair enough. That explanation makes sense, and it probably would have helped me to make sense of the character overall if this sort of description was included in the description of the class.


Caineach wrote:


I totally agree. But I think part of the Inquisitor is about being willing to put aside your feelings for...

And now it's my turn to agree wholeheartedly with you. =D Dang, it's starting to sound like some kind of support group in here ;) ....

Anyway, the Inquisitor is a more "purpose-driven" class than a lot of the other ones. The ranger can be a grim hunter dedicated to avenging himself on the humanoid types who wiped out his town, an aspiring woodsman who wants to prove himself against the deadliest beasts, or someone who just enjoys the outdoors and has picked up a lot of survival skills for a lethal world. The rogue might be a scruffy violent ne'er do well, a chaotic but essentially good-hearted Robin Hood figure, an elegant dandy who gets a thrill out of the dangers of roguery, and so on.

But the inquisitor is pretty much going to be trying to advance the cause of his faith. If he's not doing that, he's not an inquisitor. So, he's going to look for ways to use his quests to benefit that cause, and he's going to try to get the other party members to at least occasionally do something for his purpose. And if they go against that, there's going to be conflict of one kind or another.

I guess what I was trying to say is that it isn't necessary to play the inquisitor as a badgering and threatening presence in the party -- he may always view friendships as secondary to the cause, and be willing to sacrifice them if there was a compelling enough reason.

But he can still be a relatively pleasant chap in the meantime, and try to use persuasion to 'use' his buddies --

"Ah, yes, my noble companions -- since we were so successful in that quest, and I made no complaint even when blah blah blah happened -- should we not go forth and slay the ogres who are oppressing the pilgrims of Pelor near the Shrine of the Fifth Radiance, though there is little treasure to be had from them?

"After all, it was with the Shining One's aid and blessing that you won that most recent mighty hoard .... and it will win you fame and respect if you do this deed, as well ...."


Carnivorous_Bean wrote:
Caineach wrote:


I totally agree. But I think part of the Inquisitor is about being willing to put aside your feelings for...

And now it's my turn to agree wholeheartedly with you. =D Dang, it's starting to sound like some kind of support group in here ;) ....

Anyway, the Inquisitor is a more "purpose-driven" class than a lot of the other ones. The ranger can be a grim hunter dedicated to avenging himself on the humanoid types who wiped out his town, an aspiring woodsman who wants to prove himself against the deadliest beasts, or someone who just enjoys the outdoors and has picked up a lot of survival skills for a lethal world. The rogue might be a scruffy violent ne'er do well, a chaotic but essentially good-hearted Robin Hood figure, an elegant dandy who gets a thrill out of the dangers of roguery, and so on.

But the inquisitor is pretty much going to be trying to advance the cause of his faith. If he's not doing that, he's not an inquisitor. So, he's going to look for ways to use his quests to benefit that cause, and he's going to try to get the other party members to at least occasionally do something for his purpose. And if they go against that, there's going to be conflict of one kind or another.

I guess what I was trying to say is that it isn't necessary to play the inquisitor as a badgering and threatening presence in the party -- he may always view friendships as secondary to the cause, and be willing to sacrifice them if there was a compelling enough reason.

But he can still be a relatively pleasant chap in the meantime, and try to use persuasion to 'use' his buddies --

"Ah, yes, my noble companions -- since we were so successful in that quest, and I made no complaint even when blah blah blah happened -- should we not go forth and slay the ogres who are oppressing the pilgrims of Pelor near the Shrine of the Fifth Radiance, though there is little treasure to be had from them?

"After all, it was with the Shining One's aid and blessing that you won that most recent...

What you are describing could basically be an evil person who doesn't really care about other people, I dont get why everyone wants to see a party murdering psychopath in the inquisitor class.

Also I object still to giving the inquisitor a high sense motive bonus, sure it is an important skill, but many core classes have those skills as well yet they do not get a bonus. I just want to caution against making every new single class better / more interesting than the core classes.

You think Sense Motive is just about perfect for the class.. fine it has a good wis modifier it has many skills to spend, use a feat to get skill focus if you want to be even better.


Remco Sommeling wrote:
What you are describing could basically be an evil person who doesn't really care about other people, I dont get why everyone wants to see a party murdering psychopath in the inquisitor class.

Actually, I DON'T want a party-murdering psychopath. What I was trying to say is that the inquisitor has more defined goals than other party members, and is likely to try to steer them periodically into a quest that furthers those goals. Not every time, but once in while, he'd probably do his best to get them to go on an adventure or do things during an adventure that benefit his faith, rather than benefitting mainly himself or them.

But he wouldn't attack them unless they attacked the thing he was sworn to defend. Pretty much the point I made above with the rogue and the barbarian killing the rogue's mother. The inquisitor wouldn't put his friendship/alliance with the party ahead of everything, and if the chips were down totally he'd probably choose his god over the party (a rare situation where that would arise anyway, I'd think). But most of the time, minor to moderate 'conflicts of interest' would provoke nothing more than a protest.

The inquisitor might leave the party if they consistently avoided adventures that seemed to promise advancing his cause, but he wouldn't kill them unless they were planning on burning down the main temple of his faith so they could turn the priests into a zombie army, or something.

And he'd probably try to get them to do stuff that was helpful to the 'greater good' (or greater neutral or greater evil, as the case may be) when he saw the opportunity. Not really a leader, per se, but a strong advocate trying to nudge them towards doing certain things when the time was right.

But no, I don't see the inquisitor killing anyone in the party without extreme provocation, pretty much like would be true of anyone else in the party (unless there happens to be a Belkar around ;) ).

Short version - I'm on your side on this! :) The class is "inquisitor," not "commissar." ;)


oh yea we absolutely need a commisar, a confessor.. oh and a SPACE MARINE


Carnivorous_Bean wrote:

Actually, I DON'T want a party-murdering psychopath. What I was trying to say is that the inquisitor has more defined goals than other party members, and is likely to try to steer them periodically into a quest that furthers those goals. Not every time, but once in while, he'd probably do his best to get them to go on an adventure or do things during an adventure that benefit his faith, rather than benefitting mainly himself or them.

Never said the Inquisiter was a "party-murdering psychopath" but if it came down to friends or church...

My best example is, what if the party (of mixed religions) came across the equivalent of the davinci code for the Inquisiter's religion?

Things could get very ugly, very fast, and they should...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nunspa wrote:

Never said the Inquisiter was a "party-murdering psychopath" but if it came down to friends or church...

My best example is, what if the party (of mixed religions) came across the equivalent of the davinci code for the Inquisiter's religion?

Things could get very ugly, very fast, and they should...

So, once per religion, per the entire existence of the religion an inquisitor might go postal on his party... All right. Your example is just so... rare. Even in a polytheistic society at one world shaking secret per religion (assuming they all have one) it's just not too likely to come up. And, if he's any good at his job he should be able to cover it up without mass slaughter of his closest friends. Unless of course, he *is* a party murdering psychopath who's just been looking for an excuse :D

I'm sure their are things an Inquisitor might like to cover up, but it's just as likely in the case of more mundane scandals, that he'll want to expose the guilty parties and purify the Church. Depends on whether he takes his role seriously or he's just a Church thug following orders and cleaning up messes.


Carnivorous_Bean wrote:
But the inquisitor is pretty much going to be trying to advance the cause of his faith. If he's not doing that, he's not an inquisitor.

Don't forget that different faiths are more or less picky about "advancement." Some religions are pretty loose, especially the TN or CN guys. They probably would be OPPOSED to the Inquisitor forcing his allies into anything too much.

Yeah, the class can be purpose-driven, but every class has some leeway, some room for interpretation, even the Paladin. Not every Inquisitor has to be so shifty-eyed and paranoid he never has any friends. In fact, a NG Inquisitor played like that might be Doing It Wrong, that sort of deity would want them to have trustworthy allies that they value, probably.

The "threats everywhere, trust no one, protect the church" idea to me suggests a PrC taken by Paladins, Inquisitors, Clerics and maybe Rogues, as it's more specific and specialized than a base class. The base class should be able to be played a few different ways.

Osirion

I love this class. To give you some background, my inquisitor is level 6 now and is a straight laced, hard boiled 'Detective' with a Law and Order themed church. As an elf his HPs are a little low but his AC is the best in the party (Medium Armor and Shield) and fully buffed it gets ridiculous. His attack and damage are all second rate, he is there to take shots for the easier to hit DPS characters but when it comes to unloading he can buff up to dish out some serious hurt.

Skill Set is great, with a Bard in the party I am the Bad Cop to his Good Cop and with the Ranger I am always there to shore him up in case he rolls poorly on a track. This character does not step on anybody's toes despite his broad spectrum of abilities.

Cunning Initiative is the best, I have a High Dex character with Improved Initiative to boot. I almost always go first which lets me start my Judgments right away.

Tactical Feats and Solo Tactics. Awesome. I like the new feats and after a few games of watching me get the bonuses solo the Rogue and Fighter are thinking about picking them up too. The ability to swap the latest one is a little confusing but I like having that ability there.

Judgments. I like them, I even like the scaling. Makes for more tracking but I would rather have +3 eventually instead of +2 right away. The only thing I would ask for is more per day.

Bane. Awesome, awesome, awesome.

Spells, took me a bit to wrap my head around. 3rd level is a little weak in the list but 1 and 2 have some great spells. I do think that Inquisitor should get the domain spell as a free spell known but leave spells per day untouched. 4-5-6 all look good but I am not there yet.

For the abilities that are yet to come. Evasion seems strange to have so high up there. Exploit weakness is just strange and having it tied to crits just exacerbates that. Slayer I think should happen earlier, like 12th. The first two rounds of combat tend to go quick. A more powerful ability to have at 17th would be the ability to switch 1 judgment that is at max to another and have it stay at max.

The only ability he doesn't have that I think he should have is Trap Sense, same progression as the Barbarian.

So far I am thoroughly enjoying this character that has so many faces. Detective, Monster Hunter, Zealot, Bounty Hunter, Terrorist, Freedom Fighter and I am sure many others.


Caineach wrote:


From what I can tell, the Inquisitor gets only the his Solo Tactics ability for having allies arround. He NEEDS allies sometimes, but they are a liability for him and he knows it. They could betray him at any moment, but until then he will be vigilant and use them where he can. He is still quite able on his own, as his skill list is amasing, his other combat abilities are solid, and he has some good spells to do useful things.

So he's evil? This seems very character dependent. Your asking Inquisitors to be paranoid that everyone will betray him, that the church he is working for is nothing but tools for his purposes. Which would kind of go against what this class seems to be about, at least lore wise.

If you want to make a character like that, by all means, but if he working for a church like, say, the Neutral Good Pelor, I doubt he would think his Paladin buddy is going to kill him in his sleep, nor would he manipulate the paladin him so freely. "He probably could if he needed too, but he would at least feel bad about it."

Now if it was an Inquisitor for a God like Lolth, or even Wee Jas, by all means, have fun.

Caineach wrote:

He vowed to kill the mayor of the city and take control of it for the good of the people. I recently became mayor, so now he had to kill me to fullfill this vow.

I also know many people who love playing characters with different motivations traveling for convienience. They are not always the evil characters who will backstab their buddies, especially when Duty commands it.

So you where playing with a lawful-stupid paladin, that's all player base. Any smart paladin could have easily notice that the terms of his oath has changed since the there is now a new mayor.

I personally, usually play in groups where everyone isn't trying back-stab everyone else, and try to ignore player vs player, unless the campaign calls for it. It starts getting very meta, and is certainly a good way to lose some friends. Since no one likes it when someone meta games a character that is a perfect counter to another players character.

Although we do support it if it does make sense in game, "or if where playing an evil campaign" but I'm going off topic here.

.
.
.

I for one love spell casters with "different" progression. Duskblade and Bards have always been a favorite of mine because they where just fun to play as. "and you don't need to be min/maxed to be fun, although it was still possible with them too" I would actually like to see more. Which these updates actually had several, which made me very happy. :) The spells need to stay. The added benefit of domain spells would be nice too.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lockgo wrote:
Caineach wrote:


From what I can tell, the Inquisitor gets only the his Solo Tactics ability for having allies arround. He NEEDS allies sometimes, but they are a liability for him and he knows it. They could betray him at any moment, but until then he will be vigilant and use them where he can. He is still quite able on his own, as his skill list is amasing, his other combat abilities are solid, and he has some good spells to do useful things.

So he's neutral evil? This seems very character dependent. Your asking Inquisitors to be paranoid that everyone will betray him, that the church he is working for is nothing but tools for his purposes. Which would kind of go against what this class seems to be about, at least lore wise.

If you want to make a character like that, by all means, but if he working for a church like, say, the Neutral Good Pelor, I doubt he would think his Paladin buddy is going to kill him in his sleep, nor would he manipulate the paladin him so freely. "He probably could if he needed too, but he would at least feel bad about it."

Now if it was an Inquisitor for a God like Lolth, or even Wee Jas, by all means, have fun.

Caineach wrote:

He vowed to kill the mayor of the city and take control of it for the good of the people. I recently became mayor, so now he had to kill me to fullfill this vow.

I also know many people who love playing characters with different motivations traveling for convienience. They are not always the evil characters who will backstab their buddies, especially when Duty commands it.

So you where playing with a lawful-stupid paladin, that's all player base. Any smart paladin could have easily notice that the terms of his oath has changed since the there is now a new mayor.

I personally, usually play in groups where everyone isn't trying back-stab everyone else, and try to ignore player vs player, unless the campaign calls for it. It starts getting very meta, and is certainly a good way to lose some friends. Since no one likes it...

Actually, no, it was not a lawful stupid Paladin but a very cold and calculating one, fighting for the greater good, as he saw it. The terms of his oath had not been justified. He had not fullfilled it, and in order to I had to die. The oath required a lawful orde to be set up to rule the city. I would have achieved a similar result as him, but by continuing the chaotic government. He could not allow the chaos to continue. I love the outcome of that game. I crit him using the crit cards and caused bleed the turn he took me down. The bleed ended up killing him before he could lay on hands. The city fell into ruin and is now ruled by undead.

Keeping secrets was nothing new to that campaign. The game was a huge experiment that lasted about 2 years. It was after the final battle that this exchange took place.

As for an Inquisitor being wary of his allies, even the Paladin can be turned into a werewolf or a vampire, and he must be wary of such things. If you grow too close, you wont be able to strike the blow you need to. You must be able to guard your heart.


Caineach wrote:

Actually, no, it was not a lawful stupid Paladin but a very cold and calculating one, fighting for the greater good, as he saw it. The terms of his oath had not been justified. He had not fullfilled it, and in order to I had to die. The oath required a lawful orde to be set up to rule the city. I would have achieved a similar result as him, but by continuing the chaotic government. He could not allow the chaos to continue. I love the outcome of that game. I crit him using the crit cards and caused bleed the turn he took me down. The bleed ended up killing him before he could lay on hands. The city fell into ruin and is now ruled by undead.

Keeping secrets was nothing new to that campaign. The game was a huge experiment that lasted about 2 years. It was after the final battle that this exchange took place.

As for an Inquisitor being wary of his allies, even the Paladin can be turned into a werewolf or a vampire, and he must be wary of such things. If you grow too close, you wont be able to strike the blow you need to. You must be able to guard your heart.

So you where playing an evil character "or really chaotic", and he wasn't that, and your character was indeed psychotic since you just let the city become ruin with the undead, after going to length to try to put it under chaotic government. "Can you have a chaotic government". He was the complete reverse of you. That would have probably have gone down with any class.

Again, if your god is an evil god, by all means, follow his example, if your god is good, you probably aren't going to turn your friends into werewolfs. Just like a Lawful Good Cleric, does not act like a Chaotic Evil Cleric.

Others above have posted better examples, so I'm not going to retread old grounds, but yes, it is good to have a plan to kill everyone you meet, but again, this is a character quirk.


Lockgo wrote:


So he's evil? This seems very character dependent. Your asking Inquisitors to be paranoid that everyone will betray him, that the church he is working for is nothing but tools for his purposes. Which would kind of go against what this class seems to be about, at least lore wise.

If you want to make a character like that, by all means, but if he working for a church like, say, the Neutral Good Pelor, I doubt he would think his Paladin buddy is going to kill him in his sleep, nor would he manipulate the paladin him so freely. "He probably could if he needed too, but he would at least feel bad about it."

Now if it was an Inquisitor for a God like Lolth, or even Wee Jas, by all means, have fun.

Ah just the reason why I hate the alignment system,

Life is not black and white Lockgo… not by a long shot.

Lets present this scenario, an inquisitor of Pelor… comes across a prophecy, made by Pelor himself… or someone just as creditable in the Inquisitor’s eyes, maybe some legendary Oracle/Prophet of Pelor. The prophecy speaks about a person that will destroy Pelor himself and commit atrocities which will cover the lands in the blood of the innocent; this child will be born on the 15th day of fall, upon the light of the twin moons. It is also Prophesized that the child’s father is “blessed by our lord” and the boy “shall be marked with an eye of the sea and an eye of the night.”

The inquisitor knows that boy… The son of Sir Donavan... head of the knights of the shining sun; an order of knights dedicated to Pelor… his son was reputed to have has a blue eye and a dark brown eye.

But before acting, the Inquisitor checks the child’s birth date in the family records (which requires him to break into the knight’s home to gain access to them) and finds out that the child’s birth in fact falls on the correct date.

Now let’s say he didn’t do the easy thing and sneak into the boys room and put the blade to him…

Let’s say he brings the information to the father and the knightly order…

The father, being nothing more than a father... with the child and some of his best and most loyal men escapes to a neighboring nation.

And let’s add to the mix, the child is 1 year old... an innocent.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Life is full of colors.. playing in black and white is boring

players who like black and white don't last too long in my games.


It seems though people see much more black than white in the inquisitor, every goodly holyman becomes killer of innocents and traveling companions

While I appreciate the drama, sometime back and white just makes for a better picture


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lockgo wrote:
Caineach wrote:

Actually, no, it was not a lawful stupid Paladin but a very cold and calculating one, fighting for the greater good, as he saw it. The terms of his oath had not been justified. He had not fullfilled it, and in order to I had to die. The oath required a lawful orde to be set up to rule the city. I would have achieved a similar result as him, but by continuing the chaotic government. He could not allow the chaos to continue. I love the outcome of that game. I crit him using the crit cards and caused bleed the turn he took me down. The bleed ended up killing him before he could lay on hands. The city fell into ruin and is now ruled by undead.

Keeping secrets was nothing new to that campaign. The game was a huge experiment that lasted about 2 years. It was after the final battle that this exchange took place.

As for an Inquisitor being wary of his allies, even the Paladin can be turned into a werewolf or a vampire, and he must be wary of such things. If you grow too close, you wont be able to strike the blow you need to. You must be able to guard your heart.

So you where playing an evil character "or really chaotic", and he wasn't that, and your character was indeed psychotic since you just let the city become ruin with the undead, after going to length to try to put it under chaotic government. "Can you have a chaotic government". He was the complete reverse of you. That would have probably have gone down with any class.

Again, if your god is an evil god, by all means, follow his example, if your god is good, you probably aren't going to turn your friends into werewolfs. Just like a Lawful Good Cleric, does not act like a Chaotic Evil Cleric.

Others above have posted better examples, so I'm not going to retread old grounds, but yes, it is good to have a plan to kill everyone you meet, but again, this is a character quirk.

A. The city fell into ruin because both the Paladin and I died. There was no one left to save it, the god of the city was just slain (by us, it had gone insane and festered too long), and the City's keeper (in this cosmology there is 1 urban druid in every city) was turned into a vampire. The city slowly crumbled when it couldn't recover from the war, the bodies of the hundreds of thousands who died were still rotting in the street. The living fled, and that is why it became an undead haven. I did not choose that path, I was dead. As players, both myself and the Paladin player were very happy with this result for some reason.

B. Just because your god is good doesn't mean his followers can't become corrupted in some way. Thats the reason the inquisitor exists. To root out that corruption, even if its his friends. In that case, to not remove the threat his friends pose would be going against his god and his holy purpose. I would likely remove his powers for that as a GM.


Remco Sommeling wrote:

It seems though people see much more black than white in the inquisitor, every goodly holyman becomes killer of innocents and traveling companions

While I appreciate the drama, sometime back and white just makes for a better picture

But pictures are static….

Movies on the other hand are much better when are in HD-Res color with Surround Sound.

A good movie… and in my option... a good game should make you think.

It’s not easy being a hero, the path is not clean and clear, and sometimes… even the greatest of heroes get lost along the way. Heroes should have to make hard moral choices, for nothing worth keeping comes without sacrifice.

Grand Lodge

I see a lot of theoretical discussion but no one seems to have actually played the class yet. I am gearing up for a game in the coming days and will be playing an Inquisitor. After reading the flavor text from the handout, I picture the class being somewhere along the lines of a high planes drifter crossed with Dirty Harry or perhaps a divinely driven Batman without the ninja skills.

So far, the first problem I encountered was picking an alignment. Many of the judgments lose their effectiveness if you don't have a certain alignment. I selected Iomedae as my deity and lawful neutral as my alignment. I figure, as justice is blind so will my Inquisitor be blind to the good or evil and solely follow the letter of the law.

With the addition of traits, the BAB deficiency can go away...

I'll have some actual experiences to share in a few days.


I was wondering if the 8th level granted ability of the Alignment Domains (Good, Law, etc) stacks with the Bane and Greater Bane ability of the Inquisitor?

I read through both sets of rules and they just say that the player grants it to a weapon and there is nothing that says it replaces any of the existing abilities upon the weapn that these abilities are granted.

So just doing some math here. At level 12 with Good Domain.

Base Weapon <your choice>

Bane is +2 to hit and +2d6 damage
Holy is +2d6 damage vs Evil and by passes damage reduction as appropriate
Greater Bane is +2d6 damage

Judgement is 4/day (which includes 2nd judgement)

Destruction provides +2 to +6 damage (Sacred Bonus)
Justice provides +1 to +3 to hit (Sacred Bonus)

Tactical Feats (4 at this level)

Outflank can give +4 to hit on flanking attacks
or Paired Opportunist gives +4 to hit on Opportunity Attacks
Precise Strike gives +1d6 damage
4th Tactical Feat is the tunable feat and not set

So, if you are fighting someone of opposite alignment and have a companion that can act as your flank (they don't need the Tactical Feats themselves do to Solo Tactics)

You are on first round
+2+1+4 = +7 to hit
+2d6+2d6+2d6+2+1d6 = +7d6+2 damage per attack (on top of the weapon and criticals).

You are on the third and additional rounds
+2+3+4 = +9
+2d6+2d6+2d6+6+1d6 = +7d6+6 damage per attack (on top of the weapon and criticals).

This is all without consideration for BAB, characteristics, additional magic from spells, or additional magic from items.

That is some pretty good potential for thumping and dpr.


Nunspa wrote:
Lockgo wrote:


Life is not black and white Lockgo… not by a long shot.

................... I never said it was?!?!?!?

Apparently you are getting the complete wrong idea entirely of what I said. What I was getting at is, that for what ever reason, several posts have been painting the Inquisitor as a psychopathic nut who makes plans to kill all of his friends on a whim, when in all likeliness, depending on his god, he probably wouldn't be so freaken paranoid. He wouldn't be so "ready to kill for our lord and master" without proper motivation, just like anyone else. "Unless you want to make your character like that of course."

Your example was a good example towards character morality, which was good but not at all what I as getting at. If I was the DM in that case. I actually would do one of two things.

Ether one, since the inquisitor was indeed charged by his god, to kill this said child, who would have in fact have brought great destruction to the world if he lived. I would not penalize him for acting evil at all, because 1, his god, who in his mind is good, told him to, and 2, if the said child is to "commit atrocities which will cover the lands in the blood of the innocent" the player could tell me that his character would think it to be more evil for the child to live. Especially since his god just old him as much.

Or two, I would give him marks towards being more of a true neutral then good. However, he would never enter the realm of evil, since he isn't doing this for a malevolent reason or even personal gain.

Or find out he was being used, that child was nothing more then a normal child, with the changeling Prophet laughing along his way.

However, if you want to set up an Oedipus style story, it wouldn't be hard to believe he won't ether. Again though, that would be CHARACTER DEPENDENT. Maybe he can even end up questioning his god, write a trilogy of philosophical blockbusters: 'Where God Went Wrong', 'Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes' and 'Who is this God Person Anyway?'"

He could even take the third option, and ether "seal the evil, and make it unable to overtake the child." Watch the child for the rest of his life, and be ready to kill him at he first sign of turning "When he is an adult, or when he starts growing devil wings", or even, if he was warned early enough, make sure Sir Donavan does not get his mack on with the Sisters of Battle. "Or make him impotent."

So using the Paladin as another example, if his god is telling him to kill someone, it wouldn't be hard to believe he would, if he knows 100% that his god told him to kill that child. For very justified reason. It would be counter productive to make a paladin fall and lose all of his god given powers when his god just told him to do it. Would he feel conflicted, sure that's great character turmoil, but at the same time, well, god did tell him so maybe hr wouldn't feel bad at all.....

Does he think his god is going to tell him to kill his friends at random inter-vaults, probably not..... That is the real problem here. The Inquisitor is being painted as someone who automatically assumes his god would tell him to kill his closest friends, or innocents, so he shouldn't have any, and be cold, and distance.

"Again, if you WANT to make a character like that, by all means, make him that way if you want."

Caineach wrote:


B. Just because your god is good doesn't mean his followers can't become corrupted in some way. Thats the reason the inquisitor exists. To root out that corruption, even if its his friends. In that case, to not remove the threat his friends pose would be going against his god and his holy purpose. I would likely remove his powers for that as a GM.

This could be very similar to a Paladin who's Paladin friend may have "turned" and become an evil Blackguard.

Or a Blackguard who's Blackguard friends have become "weak and soft".

Also, that was a hilarious ending.

I just came to a realization.... are we arguing over fluff text?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I went into reading (and making) inquisitor with a Warhammer 40K mindset... (please, no flaming please)

Inquisitors within the 40k universe are the "right hand of the emperor" (the god of mankind for those not in the know of 40K). They use tools and skills that would normally be considered Heresy to the Imperium at whole. While they use these "heretical" tactics and tools, they are doing so almost completely to protect the imperium, and to an extent mankind.

They do make friends, and trusted associates, but that's what comes with the job. An Inquisitor, while psychologically would be better off as a lone wolf, understands he can't do his job alone. Yes, the chance of the inquisitor having to turn on his friends is there, but that chance is there just as much for any other character, it's just stronger for an inquisitor.

They are grim, (usually) stoic, and ever vigilant. The Inquisitor's willingness or unwillingness to work with a group will almost entirely depend on the inquisitor's deity.

The only mechanical question I have, is why is it that the caster's primary attribute is Wisdom and not Charisma, since it's a spontaneous caster?


Joseph Davis wrote:
The only mechanical question I have, is why is it that the caster's primary attribute is Wisdom and not Charisma, since it's a spontaneous caster?

The Paladin isn't a spontaneous caster and uses Charisma.

51 to 89 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Older Products / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Player's Guide Playtest / Round 3 - Alchemist and Inquisitor / Inquisitor feedback All Messageboards
Recent threads in Round 3 - Alchemist and Inquisitor

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.